D&D General Why defend railroading?

[FrozenNorth]

Huh? There are RPGs, including versions of D&D, where the GM does not have overwhelming control over what happens next based on extrapolation by him/her about fiction that only s/he is aware of or able to invent.

Sorry, I have no issue with the recognition of GM-control (regardless of RPG), and I agree with you.

My only issue is terming all such control “railroading”, and therefore a degenerate form of play. I misread.

 

[pemerton]

Sorry, I have no issue with the recognition of GM-control (regardless of RPG), and I agree with you.

My only issue is terming all such control “railroading”, and therefore a degenerate form of play. I misread.

I took it as a premise in this thread that railroading doesn't have to be degenerate. Otherwise the whole topic is oxymoronic.

So I was assuming that "railroading" means something like at every moment of play the GM decides what happens next, and the players main function is to learn what that is and perhaps provide a bit of embellishment via their action declarations.

Time constraints.
Sometimes it is better to just fly over something to speed up the game so you can have a coherent story in a few hours instead of a few days.

Of course you should ask for player input in important cases and listen to players if they object on something.
A railroad can always be stopped and a scene can be played out.
But in many occasions it is not worth the time.

I wouldn't normally think of this sort of scene-framing or pacing management as railroading, unless of course there is some sort of disagreement between players and GM over what matters and what doesn't.

Central to railroading, I think - and as seems to be the main focus in this thread - is not who decides pacing and framing, but who decides what happens after a player declares an action for his/her PC. In railroading play, that is the GM. Whether that is degenerate or not turns on the further question of who wants what out of play.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

The rules are rulings OVER rules. Why waste the time of the players on a non-battle battle? A corner case scenario where the PCs are low on hit points and resources in the middle of a city is just that, a corner case. It could and should be ruled differently. Generally, though, the DM should just narrate the speedbump victory and move on.

The fundamental herein remains: the expectation of a "good GM" (a subjective qualifier) to know that it is appropriate to ignore the design of the system in favor of handwaving the game's design as part of gameplay. Even then, this measurement of "goodness" is entirely reliant on a consensus that handwaving an encounter creates a quality gameplay, a consensus that does not exist. Plenty of GMs would view running the encounter as matter of good GMing.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

In railroading play, that is the GM.

What gets me are the people who thinks the only alternative to "GM decides" is "Dice decide".

In my games, it's always the players who decide, yet the type of game I play seems to be what some people here think is a railroad.

 

[pemerton]

What gets me are the people who thinks the only alternative to "GM decides" is "Dice decide".

In my games, it's always the players who decide, yet the type of game I play seems to be what some people here think is a railroad.

To clarify, are you saying that you don't use dice, and that players get to decide the outcomes of all their action declarations?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

To clarify, are you saying that you don't use dice, and that players get to decide the outcomes of all their action declarations?

No. The players decide what they are going to do. Dice often determine success or failure of their actions.

Outcomes are not decisions.

 

[Maxperson]

No. The players decide what they are going to do. Dice often determine success or failure of their actions.

Outcomes are not decisions.

Sure they are. The players decide what they are going to TRY and do. The dice decide the outcome of that attempt.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

If we get down to brass tacks, D&D is entirely up to the whims of the GM. The GM decides everything: when to call for a skill check, what the DC of a skill check is, what the impact of that skill check is. It's entirely controlled by the GM with an illusion of player input upon it. The only thing that's not entirely determined by GM fiat are those mechanics with established procedures, like rolling to-hit vs. AC and then inflicting weapon damage.

 

[Maxperson]

If we get down to brass tacks, D&D is entirely up to the whims of the GM. The GM decides everything: when to call for a skill check, what the DC of a skill check is, what the impact of that skill check is. It's entirely controlled by the GM with an illusion of player input upon it. The only thing that's not entirely determined by GM fiat are those mechanics with established procedures, like rolling to-hit vs. AC and then inflicting weapon damage.

Yes and no. Does the DM have that power? Yes. Does he ever use it to enact his whims? I've heard of a few very rare horror stories, but by and large no. The DM tries his best to be impartial and fair, which means that the player declarations are not an illusion of player input, but real player input informing the DM of what the PC is attempting.

 

[Cadence]

Sure they are. The players decide what they are going to TRY and do. The dice decide the outcome of that attempt.

Does that last sentence need some more explication? Is it using the dice if the DM has decided it's an auto-success or auto-failure? And in some games the player with a good die roll can do things like find a secret door that's added to the fiction the DM was envisioning (or hadn't envisioned yet) if I understand @pemerton correctly. In D&D on the other hand the maps are often drawn out and something like that wouldn't be added. On the other hand, some things in D&D are randomly added to the fiction (like seeing if a magic item is in stock only after a player asks about a particular one).